Mastering Research Techniques for Speech and Debate Success

LD Cases! Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate LD Lab Day 1 Created By Lucas Watson and Jim Hanson

RESEARCHING IS NOT EASY Over time, you will get better and better And have an amazing skill that will give you a HUGE heads up over others Here s how to do it . . .

SEARCH FOR AN ARGUMENT Go to Google Don t just type in the topic e.g. Standardized Testing Instead type in words from your argument Example: You are looking for Standardized testing is racist Type in: Standardized testing racist What did you find? But you can and should also try . . .

SYNONYM SEARCHES But you can and should also try . . . Standardized testing racist discriminatory equity bias Tip: Type the word into MS Word/Google Docs and look for synonyms. ALSO Think: How would you word a sentence that made your argument? Use those words in your search What did you find?

MAKING THE QUOTATION READY FOR YOUR CASES/RESPONSES Copy and Paste the section you found (that makes the argument and gives reasons for the argument) into your document Then include the citation/source ABOVE what you copied and pasted Author, qualifications, Date Web page address Doing the citation/source is irritating but it is required. You ll do it faster after you get used to it.

YOUR WORK SHOULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS Note that you want to bold and underline the part you will read But you don t need to do that now.

RIGHT NOW: SHARE YOUR WORK ON PUMBLE Share a link to a Google Doc or Upload a Word file.

Case Construction (Affirmative) Affirm the Resolution Definitions Framework (Value/Criterion) Contention One and Two (maybe Three if time) Subpoint A (Card 1) Tag Subpoint B (Card 2) Tag Have clear links with reasons Have Impacts! Link the Contention to your Framework Repeat for Contention Two and Three if have a 3.

Contention Construction (Affirmative) Introduce a problem Show that the resolution SOLVES this problem Give impacts show how this is a net benefit Connect it to your framework Climate change will eventually cause mass global extinction. Implementing taxes that scale proportionately with wealth will allow the government more funding for environmental research. (here is some evidence to prove this) This is important because climate change is guaranteed to happen if we don t find a way to stop it, inevitably killing off humanity. The wealthy are morally obligated to help find a way to stop extinction because life takes priority above all else, and only through the redistribution of wealth can this be accomplished.

Case Construction (Negation) Negate the Resolution Definitions Framework (Value/Criterion) Contention One Subpoint A (Card 1) Tag Subpoint B (Card 1) Tag Make sure the contention has impacts and link to Framework Keep your Negative Case to 3.5 minutes About HALF THE LENGTH of the Aff Case Why? So you can spend HALF of your 1NC reading quotations and making analysis refutations against the affirmative.

Contention Construction (Negation) The super wealthy get their net worth from things that cannot be taxed. Introduce a problem Show that the resolution CAUSES or is LINKED TO this problem Give impacts show how this is a net harm Connect it to your framework Implementing taxes that scale proportionately with wealth will hit the non-wealthy harder because they have liquid assets that can be taxed. (here is some evidence to prove this) This is important because the super rich wouldn t actually have to give anything up, while everyone else would be forced to pay more, leading to increased poverty. This naturally does not promote equality, and goes directly against the idea of utilitarianism because 99% of people aren t super wealthy.

Framework Overview Value/Criterion Format Value: What do you (and the judge, hopefully) value What matters? Morality Justice Democracy Life Criterion: How do we evaluate (measure)? Utilitarianism Deontology

What is a value? The reason you give the judge to vote for you. It s the concept you base the moral right ness of your case on. Example: My value is preventing death because death is objectively bad, and as such we want to avoid things that cause a lot of death. (Implication: the Aff world will have significantly less deaths than the Neg, so therefore the Aff should win.) Usually a concept or objective. What kind of values might apply to the following statements? In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security. The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

What is a criterion? A standard to measure something. Used in a case to determine how/if its value can be achieved. Example: My criterion is the reduction of exploitation because overexploitation of the environment causes extinction. (Explain it in a way that relates to the topic.) Usually a philosophical or ethical concept. What kind of criteria might be useful for the following topics and values? Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. (Value: Justice) Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage. (Value: Health) States ought not possess nuclear weapons. (Value: Life)

Two ways to approach Value/Criterion Pick a value/criterion and create contentions that can support them Example: I value privacy, which can be achieved through decentralization, so here are three contentions proving that. This is the easier method, BUT you can technically also do this: Create contentions, then pick a value/criterion and edit the contentions to fit Example: A common theme between my three contentions is equality, and I m able to prove that it can be achieved through the free market economy. *Now let s brainstorm some frameworks!*

Lets Work on Cases! Ask me if you have any questions I m here to help!